Do you ever ...

[Resha Caner]

I'd say your morality isn't about concern for people then.

I'm concerned about people, but feelings are not the only barometer. I'd be concerned for the person who wants to die - wants me to kill them - and satisfying their feelings (often known as "enabling" a problem) is not always what I'm concerned about.

Of course we could ask if children are merely programmed.

We could. And by extension we could ask if all people are programmed.

How perfectly we can measure something doesn't doesn't tell us whether a an idea is right. It may be that the thing is hard to measure, or perhaps impossible. If you don't accept that then your just closing your mind to such potential truths because you don't like uncertainty. Maybe we just have to decide our actions on imperfect information.

This is not how I meant it. Self-reflection has it's benefits, but those benefits only apply to the one doing the self-reflecting until it is communicated to others. From there, the sentiments may make for an interesting conversation, but anything actionable is unlikely to conform to the original idea unless it can be made measureable.

Animals don't have human vocal cords? Maybe other animals can't use language.

I said "communication", not "speaking". Ever read Ender's Game?

How do you know children are and apes or dolphins aren't? I suppose it depends on the age of the child too. If you don't want me asking you questions that's fine... I don't mind.

I'm OK if we don't discuss it, but as long as you ask questions I'll do my best to answer. The answer to this question has two parts.

From the theological perspective, there is a limit to what a finite being can know. I won't ever be able to give you a human mechanism for determining these things. Even I must rely on some other being knowing what I don't know and communicating to me what is necessary. For the Christian, those communications come from God via the Word and prayer. In that regard, I have only been asked by God to share with humans (Matthew 28:16-20, etc.). Nothing in the Bible indicates animals are spiritual, and there are verses indicating they are not (Ecclesiaste 3:21, etc.). If they are spiritual, I would conclude God is addressing that in a way that doesn't involve humans.

From the practical perspective, I know I am human and I recognize other humans when I see them. Based on the assumption of kindrid spirits, I think it unreasonable to dismiss anyone's potential - to take away from them the opportunity to demonstrate the potential I have seen demonstrated in others. With regard to other animals, I have not seen them demonstrate an ability to communicate such things. I'll not stop others from trying to communicate with animals, but whether it's been 10 thousand or 10 billion years, the weight of the evidence is on the side of saying they can't do it.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm concerned about people, but feelings are not the only barometer. I'd be concerned for the person who wants to die - wants me to kill them - and satisfying their feelings (often known as "enabling" a problem) is not always what I'm concerned about.

I'd agree, in the sense that I wouldn't want to kill someone who was just depressed. Though they may say they want to die, I suspect they would want to live happily if they got more help for depression.

I think you ultimately have to respect a person's wishes though. If they really have made a rational and informed decision to die, then I don't see how you can deny them that. To deny them their choice over their own life is no better than treating them like your slave to control however you wish.

We could. And by extension we could ask if all people are programmed.

We could.

This is not how I meant it. Self-reflection has it's benefits, but those benefits only apply to the one doing the self-reflecting until it is communicated to others. From there, the sentiments may make for an interesting conversation, but anything actionable is unlikely to conform to the original idea unless it can be made measureable.

Well as I've said it isn't based on nothing. We can make educated guesses based on the information we have.

Human rights in the UN declaration are said to be based on human 'dignity'. Personally I think that is vague nonsense, but it does show that vague nonsense can be used as the basis for things like that. I'd say that self-consciousness is a much more understandable basis for the right to life than the vagueness of 'dignity'.

I said "communication", not "speaking". Ever read Ender's Game?

Ah ok. I haven't... I've seen the trailer though.

I'm OK if we don't discuss it, but as long as you ask questions I'll do my best to answer. The answer to this question has two parts.

From the theological perspective, there is a limit to what a finite being can know. I won't ever be able to give you a human mechanism for determining these things. Even I must rely on some other being knowing what I don't know and communicating to me what is necessary. For the Christian, those communications come from God via the Word and prayer. In that regard, I have only been asked by God to share with humans (Matthew 28:16-20, etc.). Nothing in the Bible indicates animals are spiritual, and there are verses indicating they are not (Ecclesiaste 3:21, etc.). If they are spiritual, I would conclude God is addressing that in a way that doesn't involve humans.

From my perspective, it just sounds like you are saying you have decided this because a few thousand years ago some random people wrote it down.

Maybe you have reasons for believing the Bible, but that is a pretty big topic. My proposal may be a reasoned guess based on evidence, but I'd say that is doing better than 'a book says so'.

I don't mean to be offensive, I'm just trying to show you it from my perspective.

From the practical perspective, I know I am human and I recognize other humans when I see them. Based on the assumption of kindrid spirits, I think it unreasonable to dismiss anyone's potential - to take away from them the opportunity to demonstrate the potential I have seen demonstrated in others. With regard to other animals, I have not seen them demonstrate an ability to communicate such things. I'll not stop others from trying to communicate with animals, but whether it's been 10 thousand or 10 billion years, the weight of the evidence is on the side of saying they can't do it.

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here, but I don't care to argue over right now, if that's okay with you.

 

[Resha Caner]

To deny them their choice over their own life is no better than treating them like your slave to control however you wish.

It's a much different thing.

Human rights in the UN declaration are said to be based on human 'dignity'. Personally I think that is vague nonsense, but it does show that vague nonsense can be used as the basis for things like that. I'd say that self-consciousness is a much more understandable basis for the right to life than the vagueness of 'dignity'.

The UN has never impressed me.

From my perspective, it just sounds like you are saying you have decided this because a few thousand years ago some random people wrote it down.

I hope these aren't your real reasons for dismissing the Bible. I realize people need to go through the process of rethinking past wisdom. I went through that as well. At some point I would suggest also rethinking your personal conclusions. You are likely to decide that some of the authors you once admired don't seem as smart anymore, and some you had dismissed were smarter than you first gave them credit for.

But, whether something was written 1000 years ago is irrelevant, and such works were not just propagated at random.

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning here, but I don't care to argue over right now, if that's okay with you.

OK.

 

[Paradoxum]

It's a much different thing.

I wouldn't say so, if you are denying their choice over their own life.

The UN has never impressed me.

Sure, I was just giving an example... I said myself that I disagree with their phrasing.

I hope these aren't your real reasons for dismissing the Bible. I realize people need to go through the process of rethinking past wisdom. I went through that as well. At some point I would suggest also rethinking your personal conclusions. You are likely to decide that some of the authors you once admired don't seem as smart anymore, and some you had dismissed were smarter than you first gave them credit for.

I did rethink things as I lost faith. Now I wouldn't say there are any authors I think are 'wow great'.

But what I said before isn't the real I stopped thinking the Bible was infallible. I suppose it was a combination of things, such as falsities, contradictions, and promoting immoral things.

There maybe have been other things too, such as learning stuff about how the Bible was made.

Of course I knew how to explain these problems away, but I suppose I got to a point where I wondered why there were so many problems that needed to be explained away. I'd think God could do a better job of making a perfect book. So I starting thinking the Bible was fallible but inspired, until I lost faith completely.

But, whether something was written 1000 years ago is irrelevant, and such works were not just propagated at random.

My point was more that it was just a book.

 

[Resha Caner]

My point was more that it was just a book.

My point was that it's not just a book. Even from a secular perspective that's true.

I wouldn't say so, if you are denying their choice over their own life.

Are we winding this down, or do you want to get into this? How much choice someone has in their life depends greatly on how they are connected to the people around them.

 

[keith99]

Are some of the Old Testament commandments really outdated? Of course they are not. But why not?

I take it that this means you do not eat pork, shrimp or lobster. That if married avoid contact with your wife during that time of the month, have no clothes that use a wool/ polyester blend or for that matter cotton and wool.

I could go on.

 

[Paradoxum]

My point was that it's not just a book. Even from a secular perspective that's true.

I know you think that, but I doubt you want to get into that now.

Are we winding this down, or do you want to get into this? How much choice someone has in their life depends greatly on how they are connected to the people around them.

Na, I'm okay not getting into this.